• jerkface@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    there is no ethical consumerism under capitalism

    What is the source for this quote? I most often hear it used to argue in a fatalistic way in favour of continuing to do whatever harmful thing it is a person wants to continue doing. I don’t think it is true, certainly not for those who are struggling for survival. Ethical doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no harm. It means that the harms have been considered and a meaningful attempt at balancing those harms according to some ethical framework has been made.

    • Vodulas [they/them]@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m not sure of the origin, but that is a fair point. I typically us it in the context of there is no way to find a harm free source of anything in a capitalist society, so you have to find the path with the least amount of harm in it. That is basically what you are saying, but just tweaking the stated definition of ethical.

      • jerkface@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        “Ethical” does not mean “good”, “moral”, or “right”, it means something more like, “consistent with an explicit set of ethical axioms.” It’s meaningless to say something is unethical without stating or at least implying a specific ethical philosophy.

        Carnism says that it is sometimes acceptable or even good to be cruel and violent to animals. Veganism says that it only is in cases of absolute necessity. A researcher or scientist for a cosmetics company might follow all the ethical requirements of their profession, and yet by any other standard, do unforgivable harm both to animals they experiment on and to the humans they mean to exploit with their research.

        • Vodulas [they/them]@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          something is unethical without stating or at least implying a specific ethical philosophy.

          Which is why I followed it up by saying the best we can do is harm reduction by choosing the less harmful paths when we find them. Nothing you are saying is different to what I said, just a different wording